LHC Grants Permanent Status to Daily-Wage Health Staff
The Lahore High Court has ruled that daily-wage and work-charged employees working against posts of a permanent nature in Punjab’s District Health Authorities become permanent workmen after nine months, whether or not the authorities issue a formal notification recognising their status.
The LHC daily-wage workers permanent ruling applies to staff in Punjab’s District Health Authorities.
Allowing a batch of constitutional petitions, Justice Khalid Ishaq held that the Punjab government’s 2021 policy for daily-wage, work-charged and contingent-paid employees applies to District Health Authorities, and that the authorities cannot avoid it by claiming they are autonomous bodies.
In a detailed judgment in Muhammad Bilal Raza and others versus Government of Punjab and others (2026 LHC 8384), the court declared the refusal to grant eligible employees permanent status unlawful. It set aside the orders through which the authorities had rejected their requests.
Who brought the case
The petitioners included data entry operators, sanitary workers and a laboratory assistant employed at public health facilities across Punjab. Most had first been appointed for 89 days, and their contracts were then extended again and again over several years, even though the work itself continued without a break.
Some had been working since 2016 and 2017. Several went to the High Court after their requests for recognition as permanent employees were turned down, and some complained that their services had been ended through verbal orders, while similarly placed employees in other districts had already been granted permanent workman status.
The government departments and the health authorities opposed the petitions. They argued that the authorities were autonomous bodies and therefore not covered by the 2021 policy issued by the Services and General Administration Department. Some also argued that the petitioners did not qualify as skilled workers, and pointed to financial constraints.
Why the autonomy argument failed
The court rejected the autonomy argument, citing Rule 10(c) of the Punjab District Health Authorities (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2016, which requires a health authority’s chief executive to implement government-prescribed standards and policies.
The judge held that there was no plausible justification for the authorities to refuse to implement the 2021 policy. The judgment also drew an important distinction: recognition as a permanent workman under labour laws is not the same as regularisation as a civil servant.
Under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a permanent workman is an employee, skilled or unskilled, engaged in work of a permanent nature likely to last more than nine months, who has completed a three-month probationary period. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Province of Punjab versus Ahmad Hussain (2013 SCMR 1547), which recognised that daily-wage and work-charged employees continuously performing work of a permanent nature beyond nine months could acquire the status of permanent workmen.
The judge observed that the nature of the work, not the job title, was decisive. The 2021 policy, the court held, was “self-executory”. In plain terms, eligible employees acquire permanent workman status by operation of law, without needing a separate notification from the authorities.
Verbal sackings and equal treatment
The court also rejected the argument that employees who had been laid off, or whose short-term appointments had not been extended, could no longer claim protection under the policy. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Town Administration and another versus Mohammad Khalid and others (2024 SCMR 1852), the High Court observed that repeatedly engaging employees through short-term arrangements could not be used as a device to get around labour law protections.
The Standing Orders require employers to give employment conditions in writing and to communicate any termination through a written order stating the reasons. Citing a Supreme Court verdict, the judgment stated: “Verbal termination of service is alien to labour and service laws and is also contrary to the principles of natural justice, good governance, fairness and transparency.”
On discrimination, departmental orders showed similarly placed workers in other districts had already been granted the same status. Under Article 25 of the Constitution, the court found no reasonable distinction between those workers and the petitioners.
What about unpaid salaries
On outstanding salaries, the court did not directly order the payment of all dues claimed by the petitioners. The judgment stated: “The question of disbursement of outstanding remuneration/salaries of the Petitioner(s) shall be decided through separate order(s) by the Respondents/Authorities after affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner(s) on the basis of the available record.”
Where duties were performed during the disputed period, outstanding pay must follow; where no services were rendered, the authorities could apply “no work, no pay”.
Frequently asked questions
Who does the Lahore High Court ruling cover?
Daily-wage, work-charged and contingent-paid employees serving against posts of a permanent nature in Punjab’s District Health Authorities.
After how long does an employee become a permanent workman?
After nine months of work of a permanent nature, following a three-month probationary period, under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
